Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Even-denominator fractional quantum Hall states in the zeroth Landau level of ABA trilayer graphene

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Transport experiments show even-denominator fractional quantum Hall states at $\nu=7/2$ and $\nu=5/2$ forming in the $N=0$ Landau level of ABA trilayer graphene, exactly where two symmetry-broken Landau levels cross under a displacement…

desk verdict Plausible observation of 5/2 and 7/2 FQHS in the N=0 Landau level of ABA trilayer graphene, with a body that is honest about the speculative mechanism but an abstract that overstates both the observations and the mechanism. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.06245 v2 pith:LLX3COHB submitted 2025-02-10 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.str-el

Tanima Chanda , Simrandeep Kaur , Harsimran Singh , Kenji Watanabe , Takashi Taniguchi , Manish Jain , Udit Khanna , Ajit C. Balram
show 1 more author
Aveek Bid
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.str-el MSC 81V70 PACS 73.43.-f
keywords fractionalquantumHalleffecteven-denominatorFQHSABAtrilayergraphenezerothLandaulevelmixingMoore-ReadPfaffiananti-Pfaffiandisplacementfield
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper reports transport measurements showing that even-denominator fractional quantum Hall states—the kind thought to host non-Abelian quasiparticles—can appear in the lowest ($N=0$) Landau level of ABA trilayer graphene, rather than only in the first excited Landau level of conventional semiconductors. Well-developed incompressible states form at $\nu=7/2$ and $\nu=5/2$, each accompanied by Levin–Halperin daughter states that point to a Pfaffian-type paired state. These states occur only inside a finite window of perpendicular displacement field, and that window coincides with calculated crossings between two symmetry-broken $N=0$ Landau levels that differ in valley and spin. The authors argue that the absence of inversion symmetry in trilayer graphene introduces lattice-scale couplings that, when two levels are close in energy, mix the levels and soften the short-range Coulomb repulsion, favoring a paired state over the usual gapless Fermi liquid. If correct, the result makes trilayer graphene a tunable platform for studying and potentially braiding non-Abelian anyons.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is the near-crossing of two $N=0$ Landau levels of the monolayer-like band with different valley/spin isospin indices. As a displacement field lowers one level toward the other, lattice-scale couplings that exist because ABA trilayer graphene lacks inversion symmetry mix the two valleys; the enhanced Landau-level mixing softens the short-range part of the Coulomb repulsion, converting the half-filled level from a gapless composite-fermion Fermi liquid into a paired state. The experimental signature is the coincidence between the calculated crossing loci and the $(B,D)$ window where the even-denominator state and its daughter states are strongest.

What would settle it

Measure the activation gap of the $\nu=7/2$ state over a fine grid of displacement field at fixed high magnetic field and check whether its maximum falls on the calculated crossing point of the two $N=0$ levels; if the gap maximum does not track the crossing locus, or if the state persists where the two levels are well separated, the Landau-level-mixing mechanism is not the cause. In parallel, an equivalent $N=0$ crossing experiment in bilayer graphene—whose valleys remain related by inversion symmetry—that produced an even-denominator state would contradict the claim that inversion-symmetry breaking is essential.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that, in the $N=0$ orbital of the monolayer-like band of ABA trilayer graphene, two symmetry-broken Landau levels with different valley and spin isospin indices can be brought into near-degeneracy by a displacement field, and precisely there the system forms single-component even-denominator fractional quantum Hall states at $\nu=7/2$ and $\nu=5/2$. The states are flanked by the Levin–Halperin daughters at $\nu=7/13$ and $\nu=9/17$ (with additional structure at $\nu=59/17$, $\nu=46/13$, $\nu=58/13$, $\nu=77/17$, and $\nu=43/17$), which identifies the $\nu=7/2$ state as Moore–Read Pfaffian-like and the $\nu=5/2$ state as likely anti-Pfaffian. The measured displacement-field and magnetic-field windows track the calculated crossing locus of the two $N=0$ levels, and the activation gap of $\nu=7/2$ peaks exactly where the single-particle gap between those levels collapses. The paper attributes this behavior to inversion-symmetry breaking in ABA trilayer graphene, which distinguishes the two valleys and generates lattice-scale couplings that enhance Landau-level mixing and renormalize the short-range Coulomb interaction, stabilizing the paired phase over the composite-fermion Fermi liquid (electrons bound to magnetic flux quanta).

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the near-degeneracy of these two particular $N=0$ Landau levels is what creates the paired state; if the displacement field instead acts through screening, disorder, the density profile, or some other level crossing, the microscopic explanation would fail even though the transport observation might stand.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Even-denominator fractional quantum Hall physics is not confined to the first excited Landau level: a lowest ($N=0$) Landau level can host it when two symmetry-broken levels are tuned close together.
  • The displacement field acts as a continuous switch: $\nu=7/2$ and $\nu=5/2$ and their daughter states appear only in a finite $D$ window that matches the calculated Landau-level crossings.
  • The observed daughters at $\nu=7/13$ and $\nu=9/17$ place the parent states in the Pfaffian/anti-Pfaffian universality class, so the system is a candidate host of non-Abelian quasiparticles.
  • Increasing the magnetic field strengthens the even-denominator states while suppressing the Jain-sequence composite-fermion states and breaking particle-hole symmetry around half-filling.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable extension is an exact-diagonalization study of the two crossing $N=0$ levels with realistic lattice-scale couplings from the tight-binding model, predicting the activation gap as a function of displacement field; the measured $\Delta_{7/2}$ peak gives a direct quantitative target.
  • If the proposed mechanism is general, other multilayer or moiré systems that lack inversion symmetry and allow tunable Landau-level crossings should also show even-denominator states at half-filling, for example in rhombohedral or twisted graphene stacks.
  • The sharp $D$-window may permit local-gate experiments that switch the same device between a gapless composite-fermion Fermi liquid and a paired non-Abelian state, enabling interferometric probes of anyon braiding.
  • Mapping the $B$–$D$ plane in finer detail should reveal where particle-hole symmetry breaks and could locate a topological phase boundary between the Jain sequence and the paired state.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports transport measurements in dual-gated ABA trilayer graphene showing dips in Rxx and Hall plateaus at ν = 7/2 and ν = 5/2, together with daughter states at ν = 7/13 and ν = 9/17, within a finite displacement-field window. The authors argue that these even-denominator fractional quantum Hall states occur in the N = 0 Landau level of the monolayer-like band when two symmetry-broken Landau levels with different isospin indices cross in energy. They present a tight-binding Landau-level calculation, compare the calculated crossing loci with the measured stability regions, and propose that inversion-symmetry breaking in TLG enhances Landau-level mixing, which softens the short-range Coulomb interaction and stabilizes paired composite-fermion states. The abstract additionally claims the observation of ν = 9/2 and several daughter states (59/17, 46/13, 58/13, 77/17, 43/17) that do not appear in the body or the supplied supplementary material.

Significance. If ratified, the observation of even-denominator fractional quantum Hall states in the N = 0 Landau level of a multilayer graphene system would be an important experimental advance, particularly because the displacement field provides in-situ tunability of the putative pairing mechanism. The transport data, including activation-gap measurements, are presented with standard methodology and appear credible for the 7/2 and 5/2 states. However, the paper's central interpretive claim—that Landau-level mixing at isospin crossings is the microscopic origin—is not substantiated by a microscopic calculation, and the body itself labels this scenario a conjecture. The abstract's additional claims (ν = 9/2 and the extra daughter states) are unsupported by the presented evidence. The manuscript also does not establish the 'single-component' character of the states it reports. These issues do not negate the experimental observation, but they require substantial revision before the paper can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract, Results] The abstract states that 'robust incompressible states at ν=7/2, 9/2, and 5/2 with their associated Levin–Halperin daughter states: ν=59/17 and 46/13 near 7/2; ν=58/13 and 77/17 near 9/2; and ν=43/17 near 5/2' are observed. The main text and the supplied Supplementary Information contain data only for ν = 7/2 and ν = 5/2, with daughters at ν = 7/13 and ν = 9/17. No evidence for ν = 9/2 or for the fractions 59/17, 46/13, 58/13, 77/17, and 43/17 is presented anywhere in the body or supplementary file. This is a direct inconsistency between the abstract and the manuscript content and must be fixed, either by providing the missing data or by revising the abstract.
  2. [Discussion, Fig. 2(d), Supp. Note 5] The abstract claims that 'the quantitative correspondence between the calculated crossing loci and the experimentally determined stability regions identifies Landau-level mixing as the microscopic origin.' The body, however, is explicitly more cautious: the Discussion states 'We posit' that lattice-scale couplings enhance LL mixing and that 'Further theoretical studies are essential to verify this proposed scenario.' No microscopic calculation is given showing that mixing between LL0+_M↑ and LL0−_M↓ at the experimental parameters (B = 12 T, Δ1 ≈ 6.7 meV) suppresses the short-range Coulomb repulsion enough to stabilize a paired state over the composite-fermion Fermi liquid. The observed decrease of ΔLL4 with D in Fig. 2(d) is a near-trivial consequence of the two levels approaching each other and does not by itself single out LL mixing as the stabilizer.
  3. [Results, Fig. 2(b–c), Supp. Note 6] The assignment of each observed state to a specific Landau-level crossing is post hoc. Figure 2(c) shows many LL crossings as functions of Δ1 and B; the authors select the LL0+_M↑–LL0−_M↓ crossing for 7/2 and the LL0+_M↑–LL0−_M↑ crossing for 5/2 because they occur near the experimental stability windows. The claimed 'exact' tracking in Fig. 2(b) is not quantified: no residuals, deviations, or error bars are given, and the conversion Δ1(meV) = 85 D (V/nm) (Supp. Note 3) depends on an unspecified ε_TLG. A quantitative measure of the correspondence and a discussion of why other nearby crossings do not produce even-denominator states are needed.
  4. [Introduction, Results] The paper claims observation of 'single-component [43] even-denominator FQHSs' at ν = 5/2 and 7/2, but the data do not distinguish a single-component Pfaffian from a two-component Halperin-331 state. The authors themselves state that 'there is a very weak indication of ν = 8/17, but it is not strong enough to conclusively determine if ν = 7/2 is in the Moore-Read Pfaffian or Halperin-331 phase.' In the proposed mechanism, the near-degenerate isospin levels would naturally form a two-component system, so asserting a single-component state requires more evidence than the weak daughter-state signal provides.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 1(c) caption] The caption lists D = −0.785 V/nm, which is inconsistent with the value D = −0.079 V/nm quoted in the text for the same data set; this appears to be a typographical error.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract contains a typographical error: 'e ffect' should be 'effect', and the phrase 'Levin--Halperin' uses a double hyphen rather than an en dash.
  3. [Supp. Note 3] The conversion factor Δ1(meV) = 85 D (V/nm) is stated without specifying the dielectric constant ε_TLG used; please provide the value or a reference, since the uncertainty in this conversion directly affects the claimed correspondence.
  4. [Results, first paragraph] The text says the 5/2 data are presented in the Supplementary Information, but the main text does not explicitly refer to the relevant supplementary note (Supp. Note 3); please add a cross-reference for clarity.
  5. [Supp. Fig. 3 caption] The caption contains corrupted LaTeX text ('log|Rxx/parenleft.capΩ/parenright.cap|') that should be rendered as a proper mathematical expression.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the Landau-level crossing calculation is independent of the transport stability data, and the causal mechanism is explicitly conjectural rather than derived from its inputs.

full rationale

The paper's claimed derivation chain is not circular in the sense of reducing a prediction to its inputs by construction. The Landau spectrum in Fig. 2(c) is computed from a Slonczewski-Weiss-McClure tight-binding model with literature parameters (Supplementary Note 6), and the displacement-field conversion Δ1(meV)=85 D(V/nm) is taken from external work [72]; no parameter is fitted to the measured stability region of the ν=7/2 or ν=5/2 states. The overlay of calculated crossing loci onto the experimental B–D stability map in Fig. 2(b) is therefore a genuine, independent comparison rather than a fitted prediction. Similarly, the observed correlation between the activation gap Δ7/2 and the ν=4 gap ΔLL4 is a measured correlation, not a quantity defined by the model. The proposed microscopic origin—inversion-symmetry breaking enhancing valley-resolved LL mixing—is explicitly presented as a conjecture: the Discussion states "We posit that under the influence of all these lattice terms, the bands with different valleys hybridize" and immediately adds "Further theoretical studies are essential to verify this proposed scenario." That is an unverified hypothesis, not a circular step. The main non-circular weaknesses are that the assignment of which specific crossing pair corresponds to each state is post hoc, the abstract overstates the correlation as "identifies Landau-level mixing as the microscopic origin," and the abstract lists ν=9/2 and daughter fractions (59/17, 46/13, 58/13, 77/17, 43/17) that do not appear in the body, while the body concedes the 8/17 feature is too weak to distinguish Pfaffian from 331. These are correctness and consistency concerns, not circularity, and no quoted reduction of the central claim to its own inputs is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper fits no parameters to the transport data. The LL crossings are computed from literature tight-binding parameters; the D-to-Δ1 conversion is geometric. The ad hoc element is the proposed stabilization mechanism, which is asserted without a microscopic calculation. No new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The SWMcC tight-binding model with parameters γ0=3.1 eV, γ1=0.39 eV, γ2=-0.005 eV, γ3=0.275 eV, γ4=0.040 eV, γ5=0.005 eV, δ=0.0108 eV, and Δ2=0.003 eV accurately describes the N=0 Landau levels of ABA TLG at B=12 T.
    Invoked in Supplementary Note 6 and Fig 2(c); the crossing loci that anchor the mechanism depend on these literature parameters.
  • domain assumption The displacement field D maps to interlayer potential Δ1 via Δ1(meV) = 85 D (V/nm), with no correction for screening or gate nonlinearity.
    Used in Supplementary Note 3 to translate calculated crossing Δ1 values to the D windows where states are observed.
  • ad hoc to paper A small single-particle gap between two N=0 LLs with different isospin enhances LL mixing enough to suppress short-range Coulomb repulsion and stabilize paired CF states, while the same mixing in BLG does not.
    This is the proposed stabilization mechanism (Discussion, Fig 4); the paper provides no microscopic calculation, and the authors state 'Further theoretical studies are essential to verify this proposed scenario'.
  • domain assumption The observed Rxx minima and Gxy plateaus at half-integer fillings are genuine incompressible FQH states rather than artifacts of density inhomogeneity or contact effects.
    Standard assumption for transport FQH identification; evidence is indirect, via dips and Hall plateaus rather than direct gap or noise measurements.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Even-denominator fractional quantum Hall states in the zeroth Landau level of ABA trilayer graphene." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LLX3COHB

@misc{pith2026250206245,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Even-denominator fractional quantum Hall states in the zeroth Landau level of ABA trilayer graphene},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LLX3COHB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.06245}
}
abstract

Even-denominator fractional quantum Hall states (FQHSs) at half filling are of particular interest because they can host non-Abelian quasiparticles. Here we report the emergence of such states in the zeroth Landau level ($N=0$) of ABA trilayer graphene (TLG), challenging the conventional expectation that they are confined to the first excited Landau level. We observe robust incompressible states at $\nu=7/2$, $9/2$, and $5/2$ with their associated Levin--Halperin daughter states: $\nu=59/17$ and $46/13$ near $7/2$; $\nu=58/13$ and $77/17$ near $9/2$; and $\nu=43/17$ near $5/2$. These states appear exclusively within a finite displacement-field window coincident with crossings between symmetry-broken $N=0$ Landau levels carrying distinct isospin indices. The quantitative correspondence between the calculated crossing loci and the experimentally determined stability regions identifies Landau-level mixing as the microscopic origin. We attribute the stabilization of these even-denominator states to inversion-symmetry breaking in TLG, which enhances valley-resolved Landau-level hybridization and renormalizes short-range Coulomb interactions. Our results expand the landscape of even-denominator FQHSs to multilayer graphene and establish TLG as a tunable platform for realizing non-Abelian anyons.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.06245 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Repulsive-Interaction-Driven Topological Superconductivity in a Landau Level Coupled to an $s$-Wave Superconductor

    cond-mat.str-el 2025-10 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Repulsive interactions turn a half-filled Rashba-coupled Landau level proximitized by an s-wave superconductor into a topological superconductor.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [43]

    S. K. Singh, C. Wang, C. T. Tai, C. S. Calhoun, K. A. Villegas Rosales, P. T. Madathil, A. Gupta, K. W. Baldwin, L. N. Pfeiffer, and M. Shayegan, Nature Physics 20, 1247 (2024)

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    R. B. Laughlin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 50, 1395 (1983)

    1983

  3. [2]

    D. C. Tsui, H. L. Stormer, and A. C. Gossard, Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 1559 (1982)

    1982

  4. [3]

    E ffective low energy Hamiltonian can be constructed by expanding the above Hamiltonian near K +/K- points

    and a =2.46 Å. E ffective low energy Hamiltonian can be constructed by expanding the above Hamiltonian near K +/K- points. Low energy Hamiltonian can then be written simply by substitutingγitk→ viπ, where π =ξkx + iky (Supplementary Equation 4a) ℏvi = √ 3 2 aγi (Supplementary Equation 4b) electric field can be taken into account by introducing onsite pote...

    work page

  5. [4]

    Papi ´c and A

    Z. Papi ´c and A. C. Balram, Fractional quantum hall e ffect in semiconductor systems (2022), arXiv:2205.03421 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    arXiv 2022

  6. [5]

    Arovas, J

    D. Arovas, J. R. Schrie ffer, and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett.53, 722 (1984)

    work page 1984

  7. [6]

    B. I. Halperin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 52, 1583 (1984)

    work page 1984

  8. [7]

    Moore and N

    G. Moore and N. Read, Nuclear Physics B 360, 362 (1991)

    1991

Show all 74 references
  1. [8]

    D. E. Feldman and B. I. Halperin, Reports on Progress in Physics 84, 076501 (2021)

    2021

  2. [9]

    Bartolomei, M

    H. Bartolomei, M. Kumar, R. Bisognin, A. Marguerite, J.-M. Berroir, E. Bocquillon, B. Plaçais, A. Cavanna, Q. Dong, U. Gennser, Y . Jin, and G. Fève, Science 368, 173 (2020), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.aaz5601

    2020 doi

  3. [10]

    H. K. Kundu, S. Biswas, N. Ofek, V . Umansky, and M. Heiblum, Nature Physics19, 515 (2023)

    2023

  4. [11]

    Nakamura, S

    J. Nakamura, S. Liang, G. C. Gardner, and M. J. Manfra, Nature Physics 16, 931 (2020)

    2020

  5. [12]

    Das Sarma, M

    S. Das Sarma, M. Freedman, and C. Nayak, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 166802 (2005)

    2005

  6. [13]

    Nayak, S

    C. Nayak, S. H. Simon, A. Stern, M. Freedman, and S. Das Sarma, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 1083 (2008)

    2008

  7. [14]

    R. L. Willett, K. Shtengel, C. Nayak, L. N. Pfei ffer, Y . J. Chung, M. L. Peabody, K. W. Baldwin, and K. W. West, Phys. Rev. X13, 011028 (2023)

    2023

  8. [15]

    X. Lin, R. Du, and X. Xie, National Science Review 1, 564 (2014), https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article-pdf/1/4/564/31568876/nwu071.pdf

    2014

  9. [16]

    Banerjee, M

    M. Banerjee, M. Heiblum, V . Umansky, D. E. Feldman, Y . Oreg, and A. Stern, Nature559, 205 (2018)

    2018

  10. [17]

    Dutta, V

    B. Dutta, V . Umansky, M. Banerjee, and M. Heiblum, Science 377, 1198 (2022), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.abm6571

    2022 doi

  11. [18]

    Pan, J.-S

    W. Pan, J.-S. Xia, V . Shvarts, D. E. Adams, H. L. Stormer, D. C. Tsui, L. N. Pfeiffer, K. W. Baldwin, and K. W. West, Phys. Rev. Lett.83, 3530 (1999)

    1999

  12. [19]

    J. P. Eisenstein, K. B. Cooper, L. N. Pfei ffer, and K. W. West, Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 076801 (2002)

    2002

  13. [20]

    Y . Liu, J. Shabani, D. Kamburov, M. Shayegan, L. N. Pfeiffer, K. W. West, and K. W. Baldwin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 266802 (2011)

    2011

  14. [21]

    Y . W. Suen, L. W. Engel, M. B. Santos, M. Shayegan, and D. C. Tsui, Phys. Rev. Lett.68, 1379 (1992). 21

    1992

  15. [22]

    Willett, J

    R. Willett, J. P. Eisenstein, H. L. Störmer, D. C. Tsui, A. C. Gossard, and J. H. English, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 1776 (1987)

    1987

  16. [23]

    J. P. Eisenstein, G. S. Boebinger, L. N. Pfei ffer, K. W. West, and S. He, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 1383 (1992)

    1992

  17. [24]

    Falson, D

    J. Falson, D. Maryenko, B. Friess, D. Zhang, Y . Kozuka, A. Tsukazaki, J. H. Smet, and M. Kawasaki, Nature Physics 11, 347 (2015)

    2015

  18. [25]

    Falson, D

    J. Falson, D. Tabrea, D. Zhang, I. Sodemann, Y . Kozuka, A. Tsukazaki, M. Kawasaki, K. von Klitzing, and J. H. Smet, Science Advances 4, eaat8742 (2018), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.aat8742

    2018 doi

  19. [26]

    J. I. A. Li, C. Tan, S. Chen, Y . Zeng, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, J. Hone, and C. R. Dean, Science 358, 648 (2017), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.aao2521

    2017 doi

  20. [27]

    A. A. Zibrov, C. Kometter, H. Zhou, E. M. Spanton, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, M. P. Zaletel, and A. F. Young, Nature549, 360 (2017)

    2017

  21. [28]

    Y . Kim, A. C. Balram, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, J. K. Jain, and J. H. Smet, Nature Physics 15, 154 (2019)

    2019

  22. [29]

    Huang, H

    K. Huang, H. Fu, D. R. Hickey, N. Alem, X. Lin, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and J. Zhu, Phys. Rev. X 12, 031019 (2022)

    2022

  23. [30]

    A. C. Balram, Phys. Rev. B 105, L121406 (2022)

    2022

  24. [31]

    M. S. Hossain, M. K. Ma, Y . J. Chung, S. K. Singh, A. Gupta, K. W. West, K. W. Baldwin, L. N. Pfeiffer, R. Winkler, and M. Shayegan, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 126301 (2023)

    2023

  25. [32]

    Assouline, T

    A. Assouline, T. Wang, H. Zhou, L. A. Cohen, F. Yang, R. Zhang, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, R. S. K. Mong, M. P. Zaletel, and A. F. Young, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 046603 (2024)

    2024

  26. [33]

    M. S. Hossain, M. K. Ma, Y . J. Chung, L. N. Pfeiffer, K. W. West, K. W. Baldwin, and M. Shayegan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 256601 (2018)

    2018

  27. [34]

    Shi, E.-M

    Q. Shi, E.-M. Shih, M. V . Gustafsson, D. A. Rhodes, B. Kim, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, Z. Papi ´c, J. Hone, and C. R. Dean, Nature Nanotechnology 15, 569 (2020)

    2020

  28. [35]

    Y . Kim, D. S. Lee, S. Jung, V . Skákalová, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, J. S. Kim, and J. H. Smet, Nano Letters 15, 7445 (2015)

    2015

  29. [36]

    J. K. Jain, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 6, 39 (2015)

    2015

  30. [37]

    J. K. Jain, Composite fermions (Cambridge University Press, 2007)

    2007

  31. [38]

    B. I. Halperin, P. A. Lee, and N. Read, Phys. Rev. B 47, 7312 (1993). 22

    1993

  32. [39]

    S. He, S. Das Sarma, and X. C. Xie, Phys. Rev. B 47, 4394 (1993)

    1993

  33. [40]

    Shabani, T

    J. Shabani, T. Gokmen, and M. Shayegan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 046805 (2009)

    2009

  34. [41]

    Shabani, T

    J. Shabani, T. Gokmen, Y . T. Chiu, and M. Shayegan, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 256802 (2009)

    2009

  35. [42]

    T. Zhao, W. N. Faugno, S. Pu, A. C. Balram, and J. K. Jain, Phys. Rev. B 103, 155306 (2021)

    2021

  36. [44]

    Sharma, A

    A. Sharma, A. C. Balram, and J. K. Jain, Phys. Rev. B 109, 035306 (2024)

    2024

  37. [45]

    M. R. Peterson and C. Nayak, Phys. Rev. B 87, 245129 (2013)

    2013

  38. [46]

    C. Wang, A. Gupta, S. K. Singh, Y . J. Chung, L. N. Pfeiffer, K. W. West, K. W. Baldwin, R. Winkler, and M. Shayegan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 156801 (2022)

    2022

  39. [47]

    T. Zhao, A. C. Balram, and J. K. Jain, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 186302 (2023)

    2023

  40. [48]

    Kumar, A

    R. Kumar, A. Haug, J. Kim, M. Yutushui, K. Khudiakov, V . Bhardwaj, A. Ilin, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, D. F. Mross, and Y . Ronen, Quarter- and half-filled quantum hall states and their com- peting interactions in bilayer graphene (2024), arXiv:2405.19405 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Kumar, W

    A. Kumar, W. Escoffier, J. M. Poumirol, C. Faugeras, D. P. Arovas, M. M. Fogler, F. Guinea, S. Roche, M. Goiran, and B. Raquet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 126806 (2011)

    2011

  42. [50]

    L. C. Campos, T. Taychatanapat, M. Serbyn, K. Surakitbovorn, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, D. A. Abanin, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 066601 (2016)

    2016

  43. [51]

    Koshino and E

    M. Koshino and E. McCann, Phys. Rev. B 83, 165443 (2011)

    2011

  44. [52]

    Zollner, M

    K. Zollner, M. Gmitra, and J. Fabian, Phys. Rev. B 105, 115126 (2022)

    2022

  45. [53]

    Levin and B

    M. Levin and B. I. Halperin, Phys. Rev. B 79, 205301 (2009)

    2009

  46. [54]

    Levin, B

    M. Levin, B. I. Halperin, and B. Rosenow, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 236806 (2007)

    2007

  47. [55]

    P. T. Zucker and D. E. Feldman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 096802 (2016)

    2016

  48. [56]

    L. Wang, I. Meric, P. Y . Huang, Q. Gao, Y . Gao, H. Tran, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, L. M. Campos, D. A. Muller, J. Guo, P. Kim, J. Hone, K. L. Shepard, and C. R. Dean, Science 342, 614 (2013), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1244358

    2013 doi

  49. [57]

    S. Kaur, T. Chanda, K. R. Amin, D. Sahani, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, U. Ghorai, Y . Gefen, G. J. Sreejith, and A. Bid, Nature Communications 15, 8535 (2024)

    2024

  50. [58]

    Pizzocchero, L

    F. Pizzocchero, L. Gammelgaard, B. S. Jessen, J. M. Caridad, L. Wang, J. Hone, P. Bøggild, and T. J. Booth, Nature Communications 7, 11894 (2016). 23

    2016

  51. [59]

    M. K. Jat, P. Tiwari, R. Bajaj, I. Shitut, S. Mandal, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, H. R. Krishnamurthy, M. Jain, and A. Bid, Nature Communications , 2335 (2024)

    2024

  52. [60]

    Yutushui, M

    M. Yutushui, M. Hermanns, and D. F. Mross, Phys. Rev. B 110, 165402 (2024)

    2024

  53. [61]

    de Gail, N

    R. de Gail, N. Regnault, and M. O. Goerbig, Phys. Rev. B 77, 165310 (2008)

    2008

  54. [62]

    S. H. Simon and A. C. Balram, Phys. Rev. B 111, 045102 (2025)

    2025

  55. [63]

    Serbyn and D

    M. Serbyn and D. A. Abanin, Phys. Rev. B 87, 115422 (2013)

    2013

  56. [64]

    A. A. Zibrov, P. Rao, C. Kometter, E. M. Spanton, J. I. A. Li, C. R. Dean, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, M. Serbyn, and A. F. Young, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 167601 (2018)

    2018

  57. [65]

    Y . Chen, Y . Huang, Q. Li, B. Tong, G. Kuang, C. Xi, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, G. Liu, Z. Zhu, L. Lu, F.-C. Zhang, Y .-H. Wu, and L. Wang, Nature Communications15, 6236 (2024)

    2024

  58. [66]

    Kharitonov, Phys

    M. Kharitonov, Phys. Rev. B 85, 155439 (2012)

    2012

  59. [67]

    Alicea and M

    J. Alicea and M. P. A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B 74, 075422 (2006)

    2006

  60. [68]

    A. A. Zibrov, E. M. Spanton, H. Zhou, C. Kometter, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, and A. F. Young, Nature Physics 14, 930 (2018)

    2018

  61. [69]

    B. E. Feldman, A. J. Levin, B. Krauss, D. A. Abanin, B. I. Halperin, J. H. Smet, and A. Yacoby, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 076802 (2013)

    2013

  62. [70]

    C. Cong, T. Yu, K. Sato, J. Shang, R. Saito, G. F. Dresselhaus, and M. S. Dresselhaus, ACS Nano 5, 8760 (2011)

    2011

  63. [71]

    T. A. Nguyen, J.-U. Lee, D. Yoon, and H. Cheong, Scientific Reports 4, 4630 (2014)

    2014

  64. [72]

    Tiwari, S

    P. Tiwari, S. K. Srivastav, and A. Bid, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 096801 (2021)

    2021

  65. [73]

    S. K. Srivastav, A. Udupa, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, D. Sen, and A. Das, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 096301 (2024)

    2024

  66. [74]

    D. A. Abanin, B. E. Feldman, A. Yacoby, and B. I. Halperin, Phys. Rev. B 88, 115407 (2013). 24

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.